What? A DEBATE Debate???
Justin Raimondo’s account of the exchange between Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee last week in New Hampshire makes it sound like an actual debate broke out at the candidates forum, a genuine back-and-forth of argument and counter-argument. I think Huckabee gets the worst of it, but of course I would. Nevertheless, he was marginally less demagogic than Romney and Giuliani have been in their exchanges with Paul. I’d even agree that the “honor” impulse is genuine enough, just spectacularly misguided. (In Huckabee’s case. It’s surely phony in the mouths of many.) There’s no honor in continuing to subject real people to your own lethally inept attempts to save face. But to all the people complaining that the Republican debates have “too many candidates,” I’ll agree that perhaps they should be restricted to Paul and Huckabee henceforth.
Comment by Jon H —
September 10, 2007 @ 8:38 am
Agreed, re: honor. Keeping us there to preserve our honor is, at this point, like thinking a rapist’s honor would be regained through a forced marriage with the victim.
The only way to regain our honor as a nation, at this point, would be to voluntarily bundle up Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Addington, AGAG, and plenty of others, and pack them off to the ICC in chains, for trial.
Comment by jlw —
September 10, 2007 @ 9:24 am
Honor would mean those that got us into this war–Republicans and Democrats, politicians, “experts” and pundits–stand up and declare that they were wrong, submit themselves to the judgement of the people and willingly accept whatever punishment is deemed necessary.
I was always taught that honorable men and women admit their mistakes and accept the responsibility for making things right, when possible. All this double-or-nothing staying at war simply to avoid responsibility for defeat is the coward’s way.
I wish the nation would realize that their leadership in Washington is populated by the worst sort of cowards, but then I remember the prevalence of the “non-apology”–”I’m sort if anyone was upset by what I did. . . .” It might well be that the U.S. is getting the leadership it deserves.
Comment by Brian —
September 10, 2007 @ 9:43 am
I agree with Jon H.
Frankly, I think it is well too late for impeachment alone. These people, this class, needs to be punished, and punished severely.
Not that “the American People” is innocent, either (one place I somewhat disagree with Ron Paul. There are a lot of people more than willing, eager, even, to respond slobberingly to this kind of rhetoric from the neocons and republican machine). Sadly, the coming economic collapse and serious terrorist attacks will punish the American people which, at least to a degree, enabled their crimes, so…
Comment by Leonard —
September 10, 2007 @ 9:43 am
No.
In a situation of public provision of a good or service, good service is a public good, and thus underproduced. Conversely, bad service is often a private good, and thus produced in generous amounts.
The American people as individuals deserve better than the US Government, but the design of the system practically ensures poor performance.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
September 10, 2007 @ 10:10 am
If the election was between “Out Now” Paul and “Stay the Course” Clinton, I wonder how anti-war liberals would vote?
Comment by bill —
September 10, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Clinton would win, because she is closer to the centre. Paul’s ideas on the federal reserve and social security combined with his past associations with white supremacists would be enough to sink him.
Comment by mds —
September 10, 2007 @ 11:30 am
It would be tricky. Paul’s staunch libertarian desire to have the federal government control women’s reproduction would be a barrier, as would his support for allowing states to outlaw certain forms of legal contracts between people based on their sexual orientation. And his endorsement of building a wall along the southern border to block employment seekers would be touchy. And his ties to the Free Enterprise Society, his “New World Order” schtick, his buddy Gary North’s plans for theocracy, his being a “gold bug,” his regressive tax ideas, his support for the neo-Confederate Dixie Daily News, his hostility towards the Establishment Clause, etc, etc, etc., all would be serious obstacles in my book.
On the other hand, the Iraq War and habeas are a very big deal, and Senator Clinton has certainly been very disappointing on the war and restraining abuses of executive power. And a Democratic Congress could conceivably put the brakes on attempts to appoint Supreme Court justices who believe that the Sixteenth Amendment is illegal. So maybe a Paul Presidency with a progressive Democratic Congress would actually be a less-than-atrocious outcome.
That said, if the Republican base want to nominate an anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-income tax candidate, why wouldn’t they just pick Huckabee, so they could also get a creationist, pro-war, pro-torture guy? Because that seems to be what the base prefers. And a Huckabee vs. Clinton matchup would be a much easier choice for this anti-war liberal, and hence an objectively better situation
.
Comment by Joshua Holmes —
September 10, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Paul’s staunch libertarian desire to have the federal government control women’s reproduction would be a barrier
Bzzzt. Paul wants to overturn Roe and send the issue back to the states. The states would then control abortion options.
his buddy Gary North’s plans for theocracy
You don’t honestly think Paul would be implementing theocracy.
his regressive tax ideas
Technically true, but mostly of no object. If Paul got his way, the federal government’s share of GDP would be ~2% instead of 25%. The amount of taxes needed to fund it – mostly through excise taxes and tariffs – would be small enough to give everyone a massive cut.
Let me be frank: Hillary Clinton does not respect peace or the fundamental Anglo-American rights we have secured through 800 years of struggle. If you think abortion rights and fear of goldbuggery is more important than those liberties, you’re a fucking moron.
Comment by Barry —
September 10, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
“Bzzzt. Paul wants to overturn Roe and send the issue back to the states. The states would then control abortion options.”
Ah. Like eliminating, say, the federal ban on slavery – we’s just a sendin’ the issue back to the states.
“You don’t honestly think Paul would be implementing theocracy.”
By now, I feel quite comfortable judging somebody by his cronies. We’ve passed the stage at which whack-jobs can be dismissed as not being harmful.
“If Paul got his way, the federal government’s share of GDP would be ~2% instead of 25%. ”
And ponies!
Comment by mds —
September 10, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Whew, that’s a lot of vigor about someone whose only admirable positions are the very ones that guarantee he won’t get the Republican nomination.
Oh, I’m sorry, the Texas Congressman voting for a federal ban ban of a particular abortion procedure must have been Ron Paul’s twin brother Ron.
No, he’s just chummy with (and endorsed by) a Christian Reconstructionist who advocates theocracy. And I’m sorry, but in this current day and age, his invocation at Lew Rockwell of a “war on religion” through criticism of the Jeffersonian wall of separation and such statements as:
Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.
are straight out of the Reconstructionists’ playbook (also wrong, as the Constitution is not replete with references to God).
And I await your avid justification of his support by and for the Dixie Daily News & Southern Caucus. Yeah, rhetoric about “Lincoln’s War,” defenses of cross-burning, a desire to build a big-ass wall along the Southern Border, unequal rights for people who aren’t white Christian heterosexual males, etc, etc, must take a back seat to Iraq withdrawal.
Getting out of Iraq is crucial. Restoring the Fourth Amendment and habeas are very important. As I noted above, I’m just conflicted as to whether it’s worth the moral price of a tacit vote endorsing a philosophy of rolling back Reconstruction. If that makes me a fucking moron, so be it. And claiming that someone who has voted in favor of federal laws restricting abortion just wants to “send the issue back to the states” is either mendacious or pig-ignorant.
Comment by Madeline F —
September 10, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Barry: Yay ponies!
(Yay you and mds.)
Comment by Eric the .5b —
September 10, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
So, Blues and their fanboys are gearing up to smear their dread enemy…Ron Paul, the guy who has roughly no chance to actually face their nominee in the election? Even to the point of repeating smears from pro-war Reds (”rolling back Reconstruction”? Nice!) in order to claim that the most likely pro-war Blue candidate is better?
Ah, well. I’d been thinking that the Blues would take the presidency and Congress next year and actually have to face some heat for that “elect us to stop the war that we won’t actually stop” stance, but maybe the Paul-smearing bit is a hint they’re just not up to winning the election.
Comment by jlw —
September 10, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
I think the point is that being anti-war and left-of-center doesn’t mean that you are one-dimensional. Hillary Clinton is a bad choice for president and would likely do virtually nothing to roll back the civil liberties abuses of the Bush Administration. But Ron Paul is a bad choice for president for all sorts of other reasons.
Dennis Kucinich stands a better chance of getting his party’s nomination than Ron Paul does his. Why not get on the Libertarians for Kucinich bandwagon instead of expecting everyone to ignore to old-coot-iness of Paul?
Comment by bbartlog —
September 10, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Rumor has it that CNN wanted to do a Ron Paul vs Mike Huckabee followup debate, but previous schedule commitments seem to be making it unlikely.
Dennis Kucinich stands a better chance
Intrade doesn’t think so (4% to 0.1% in favor of Paul). And I would tend to agree. Paul has more money and more volunteers. The Republican field is more fragmented at the top, so that some primaries could theoretically be won with 30% of the vote on the Republican side; on the Dem side things are more unipolar in favor of Hillary. Republican voters are more demoralized, which is helpful if one of your faint hopes is clobbering your opponents by turning out your few supporters at 75% while they only manage 15-20%.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
September 10, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
Zero possibility is not more likely than zero possibility.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say there, but…
1) Kucinich doesn’t make pro-war Reds squirm – he doesn’t even make pro-war Blues squirm, sadly. He’s just a kook from the left wing of the team. Paul makes the neo-cons nervous because his continuing presence makes it clear that even all the Red fanboys are having trouble swallowing the party line of the last six years. He’s a kook, but he’s a kook precisely for adhering to the claimed orthodoxy of Team Red. Hence, a lot of discomfort and the Red smear campaign that some Blues are cribbing from.
Or to put it more concisely, supporting Kucinich doesn’t inconvenience anyone or make them notice anything, but supporting Paul twits those in charge of Team Red.
2) Paul being anti-abortion and a gold bug doesn’t bother me in the slightest. In case folks haven’t noticed, 3 out of the last 4 presidents wanted to get rid of Roe and yet abortion remains legal because of a whacky thing called “separation of powers” that Paul is genuinely (and uniquely) big on. Even if I thought there was significant risk of a President Paul appointing enough USSC justices to shift the balance to a Roe-overturning court, I’d take pulling out of Iraq, shutting down the illegal detentions and the torture and the mass surveillance in exchange for the chance that abortion might go back to the states.
If one is picking from the available candidates, and one genuinely prefers a staunchly pro-war – and so far tacitly pro-surveillance and pro-torture – Blue over a “right-of-center” candidate who actually opposes these things, I think that is rather one-dimensional.
Or, to put it another way, many Blue fans posting here have been big on telling libertarians to vote for their Team in order to get the “important things” you and us supposedly agree on – protecting civil liberties, getting out of Iraq, etc. But when put to it, you guys seem unwilling to do anything but vote Blue, even if that candidate has no interest whatsoever in pursuing those “important things”. In this thread, you’re going so far as to pick the absurdly unlikely scenario of Paul becoming the Red nominee and declaring that it’d be better to vote against all those piddly concerns we share in order to make sure a Blue got elected.
Not that I don’t appreciate the frankness or anything, but what is this partisan logic supposed to impress upon libertarians? It’s nothing we don’t already know.
Comment by Jon H —
September 10, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
“Intrade doesn’t think so (4% to 0.1% in favor of Paul). ”
Probably all the gold bugs are bidding Paul up…
Comment by jlw —
September 10, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
Eric wrote:
This makes no sense. Maybe it wasn’t written exactly as intended. I mean, it’s likely that there are dozens of issues that two candidates disagree on. To determine that one outweighs all the others in importance is, I think, the definition of “one-dimensionality.” I, for one, believe civil rights is an important issue, and the evidence suggests that Paul would be abyssmal on this. I support Social Security and Medicare and the Federal Reserve–the sorts of bedrocks of American society and economy that Paul wants to roll back. As I said above, Clinton would be a bad president, sure, but Paul is unsuitable in a whole different but no less important set of ways.
(By the way, the most recent Gallup Poll puts Kucinich’s support at 2 percent, twice the support of Paul.)
For the left-of-center, the choice isn’t Paul or Clinton, or even Kucinich or Clinton. The choice is Richardson or (soon) Dodd or working to get Edwards or Obama to give up on the war. Edwards, in particular, seems to have been radicalized by the past seven years and may well become the most vocal critic of the war before the primaries come.
Comment by Leonard —
September 10, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
I am against them, so of course I like Paul.
Still, putting aside argumentation over how wrong you are… a President has the power to withdraw troops, and to give executive orders to administrative agencies to stop them torturing and to tell them to respect the rights of Americans. By contrast, the President by himself cannot stop Social Security, Medicare, or the Federal Reserve. Yes, he can (and Paul would) veto any spending bills for these unConstitutional things, but then the Congress would override him and that would pretty much be that. Of course, it may be that with the veto he can, at least, pare down leviathan a little. I hope so.
So, we’re left basically with this. We agree that Paul is good on most things (everything?) which libertarians and leftists agree on, which are strictly presidential powers. Paul is, from y’all’s POV, wrong on many things which are not Presidential powers.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton and the other Dems are me-too warmongers, fond of broad executive power and evidently lacking any idea that power should be restrained. They would not be as bad as Bush, although even that is hard to say for certain. That’s with respect to the direct Presidential powers.
Meanwhile, the things they would have little or no power over — what the Congress does, that is — are the desiderata by which you think them superior to Paul. That’s curious.
Comment by mds —
September 10, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
Indeed, I don’t see how anyone would think that the President had any significant influence on abortion rights, civil rights for minorities, sex education, access to contraception, or separation of church and state. Lord knows, no President has had an effect on those issues in living memory. And certainly the President doesn’t have any ability to affect the Federal Reserve. (What’s with the unconstitutionality argument, anyway? Hamilton was a major backer of the new Constitution in large part because he wanted a central bank.)
Presumably, Eric and Leonard would likewise support Dodd in a Huckabee vs. Dodd matchup without so much as an eyeblink, despite Dodd’s stances on taxation, government programs, organized labor, etc. If so, they’re better men than I am, Gunga Din.
Comment by jlw —
September 10, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
Leonard:
I believe that even anarchists would recognize that a “President Paul” would have the power to appoint like-minded individuals to government positions. As we’ve seen in the Bush Administration, the correct political appointments can not only subvert the intended goal of a government agency, but (as in the DOJ’s civil rights division) even invert it. Or he could refuse to fill political vacancies and freeze hiring in government agencies, which would have much the same effect.
I, for one, don’t believe a “President Paul” would end the war on Day One and then spend the rest of his term making ineffectual speeches about the evils of fractional banking. I think–as I suspect the true-blue Libertarians here also secretly believe–Paul would avail himself to the levers he thinks are legitimate to radically roll back the social safety net that is seen by the vast majority of Americans as just and necessary.
It’s understandable for Libertarians to see Paul in the best of light: he’s your success story, such as it is. But if Libertarianism is going to move from an appendix of large coalitions to a real alternative to left and right, you need to find candidates who are comfortable with the 21st Century in all its multicultural, heterogeneous glory. Paul, sadly, doesn’t seem to even want to accept the 20th Century.
Comment by mb —
September 10, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
The comments above are a useful reminder that “liberaltarianism” is a pipe dream. Don’t ever get between a liberal and his so-called entitlements. Sure, sure, war with Iran would be unpleasant — but forcing the Boomers to forgo a retirement in Miami at the expense of the younguns? Now that’s an atrocity!
Comment by Leonard —
September 10, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
I didn’t say insignificant. Certainly a President can nibble around the edges of some of the things you mention, although those were not the things I was responding to in jlw’s post. So, what? You’re talking about ways in which the President can choose to implement Congressional policy. There is always at least some latitude on that. True. But it is a penumbra of power.
Stopping the war does strike me as far more important than handing out birth control as widely as some might like. As for sex education, huh? Is this a snide Clinton reference?
You are correct in that the President cannot affect the Fed practically at all. We talked about that here a few days ago. Why does Paul think it is unconstitutional? In his words: “The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank.” True enough. If they want to inflate the currency, at least they should do it via the normal lawmaking means, where they can be held to account by the voters. Isn’t that what democracy is supposed to be about?
As for your hypothetical: I wouldn’t support anyone for President who I did not think would make things significantly better from a liberty POV. Meaning: shrinking the Federal government, on net, and stopping it doing the many egregious things it is doing.
So you can see the situations are not symmetrical. A Democrat who wants to expand the state, as you say Dodd does, has Congress with him. Therefore even if he wants to pull out of Iraq, slash military spending, and stop US torture and restore civil rights, he is by no means a clear win for liberty, because these fine actions would be countered by his responsibility for the growth of the regulatory/welfare state. By contrast, what Paul wants to do with the Federal government is something that just won’t happen absent a sea-change in the American people, except for things which are only the purview of the executive alone.
Comment by jlw —
September 10, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
MB:
The social safety net is wildly popular and generally effective. If you can’t accept that as the “facts on the ground” in domestic policy, you are no better grounded in reality than the Bush Administration is in foreign policy.
Comment by Leonard —
September 10, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
I don’t think this is a secret. In any case, I believe he can and would attempt to do all he could to roll back the state, at least where it is operating unconstitutionally, that being practically everything it does.
Our differences are in our opinions about the power that a President actually has over the Federal bureaucracy outside of the army. It’s not that great, without help from the other branches of government. And though I would like to hope that Congress and the Supreme Court will miraculously get liberty, I know they will not.
No, Libertarianism is not. Even libertarianism is not. It is an ideological politics, and a rather unintuitive one (to say the least). Thus it appeals only to high-IQ people, and not even most of them. It will never be a mass ideology. The ideology of the mass leans to “give me something for nothing”, “make me feel safe no matter what”, and “make the right decision for me”, all of which are sentiments contradicted by libertarians.
In mass democracy, libertarianism can only be “an appendix of large coalitions”. It is vain for libertarians to think otherwise, and futile to spend our resources attempting to make it so. Running Libertarian candidates, except perhaps in the most strategic way possible, is a big mistake.
If Paul gets elected (which is highly unlikely), it will not be because of his libertarianism broadly. It will be because of his Federalism giving hope to various people currently dissatisfied with Federal policy, his stance on immigration, and his noninterventionist stance in a year when that is important.
Libertarians, by and large, don’t want to accept most of the political innovations of the 20th century. Oh, we’ll take a few cherry-picked good ones, but when it comes to income taxation, mass warfare, mass mechanized warfare, nuclear warfare, genocide, the military-industrial complex, welfare, more welfare, the regulatory state, the police state — count me out, at least.
Comment by Brian —
September 11, 2007 @ 2:03 am
As much as I enjoy our host, WhoisIoz and Arthur Silber, it takes only a few posts like Leonards to make me realize that no, I guess I am not a “libertarian”
Comment by Glaivester —
September 11, 2007 @ 3:57 am
The social safety net is wildly popular and generally effective.
Well, it was certainly effective at ending black fatherhood and making it so that 2/3 of blacks (and a not insignifciant portion of whites) were born out of wedlock.
It is also certainly effective at creating a debt situation that will drown us.
Also, Idon’t see how anyone can simulataneously support mass immigration from poor countries and a massive social safety net unless he wants the U.S. to provide welfare for the whole world.
Comment by mds —
September 11, 2007 @ 7:30 am
Hm. The budget balanced in 2000 without having to include the Social Security Trust Fund. Alan “Ayn” Greenspan made dire mutterings about surpluses becoming too large. Who knew that George W. Bush and a Republican Congress created the social safety net and thereby bankrupted us all? Oh, wait, it all makes sense once you realize that by “social safety net” Glaivester means flushing hundreds of billions of dollars down the crapper in Iraq, all while cutting taxes for the rich.
Good to know that Ron Paul has company in his support for Dixie Daily News and the Southern Caucus, though. Those Negroes are such parasites.
Comment by jlw —
September 11, 2007 @ 8:54 am
Thanks, Leonard, for doing my work for me. See you on the next thread.
And woah, Glaivester, you need to blow the dust off those old Parliament albums and reacquaint yourself with your inner funkmaster.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
September 11, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Since I listed three issues just in the sentence you were responding do, I think not.
If we’re to reduce it down to very simple things, my main political goal – and that of quite a few other libertarians – is something like “undo as much of the damage of the last six years as possible.” Your goal, and the goal of many other Blue fans, appears to be “advance or protect all Blue efforts and political power”. While you guys tell us that we should vote Blue to achieve our supposedly mutually important “shared” goal, you don’t actually consider that goal very important, especially when it conflicts with your real goals. You’re content to leave the damage unrepaired and cheerfully watch Blues cause more of the same damage to this country – as long as it’s not the Reds doing it, and nobody threatens to change Social Security or whatever in any way.
Aside from the fact that 2% is literally indistinguishable from 1% in a poll with a 5% margin of error, we’re not rolling percentile dice to see who gets to be nominee or president.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
September 11, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
No offense, but I’m happy to take that compliment. Aside from the war, Dodd submitted an anti-torture bill this year that the other Blues have merrily let languish. I’ll take a Blue with a conscience.
But just to be clear, if Huckabee was anti-war, anti-torture, anti-PATRIOT Act, etc., and Dodd was a warmonger along the lines of Clinton or Giuliani, you’d vote for warmonger-Dodd?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
September 11, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
I’m a libertarian, not a Libertarian, but I’m rather certain he’s a bit more moderate than I and would try much less than I’d try. Also, absent anything like a libertarian presence in Congress, he’d be dealing with Reds and Blues passing their normal laws, as well as a court system filled with statist judges happy to rule that the executive branch must carry out XYZ function.
Even in your nightmare scenario/my daydream where Ron Paul becomes president, I can at best hope for him shutting down abuses and vetoing a Hell of a lot of laws. He’d be at best a brake for anything besides shutting down recent executive innovations.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
September 11, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
I think you mean without using Medicare surpluses that year. Social Security’s surplus made up 2/3 of the 2000 surplus.
Also, “Trust Fund”, “Tooth Fairy” – same difference. Social Security payments come from current social security revenues. Clinton openly (and to much approval) advocated the use of those surpluses from SS not to save for future payments, but to help pay down the national debt for at least 10 years.
I was rather amused that when Bush’s administration tried to pull the same dodge to balance their first budget, Blues started screeching about the lockbox as if it were just unimaginable to use SS surpluses to balance a budget…Though, certainly, I’ll grant that the war and Bush’s increased domestic budget (and oh yeah, that tiny, token tax cut) made such plans entirely moot for the time being.
Comment by Bill Woolsey —
September 11, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
http://www.reasontofreedom.com/celebrating_juneteenth_by_us_rep_ron_paul.html
The above is a link to a speech by Rep. Paul about slavery.
Rep. Paul strongly supports the individual rights of everyone, regardless of race, etc.
Comment by Glaivester —
September 11, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
Oh, wait, it all makes sense once you realize that by “social safety net†Glaivester means flushing hundreds of billions of dollars down the crapper in Iraq, all while cutting taxes for the rich.
Hey, I’m against both the welfare state and the warfare state. I’m not against cutting taxes, though.
Also, the fact that budget balanced in 2000 with our social safety net does not mean that the social safety net is viable indefinitely. Yes, if we hadn’t gone to war with Iraq, if 9/11 hadn’t happened, and perhaps if taxes were higher we would not have as big a deficit as we do now, but entitlements over the next few decades will grow so much in proportion to our budget that we cannot balance our budget without cutting them.
Besides, the social safety net has contributed to our debt for decades. The fact that we had surpluses from 1998 to 2000 does not negate the deficits that we had for the thirty years prior.
Sorry, though, Eric the .5b – your post actually supports mds’s claim:
The budget balanced in 2000 without having to include the Social Security Trust Fund.
If 2/3 of the surplus was Social Security, then 1/3 of the surplus was not – meaning that we still had a surplus without including Social security. The social security surplus would have to be more than 100% of the surplus to say that we would not have balanced the budget withou Social Security.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
September 11, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
My bad, Glaivester. They did manage a modest on-budget surplus in 2000. When I refreshed my memory, everything I looked up included the quote about hey, we’re not even using Medicare money anymore! Sorry, mds.
Comment by Frank —
September 12, 2007 @ 9:13 am
Eric the .5 bee- I thought your comment #15 was very smart. It gets close to the heart of why I am a former libertarian. Everything you said is true, but (IMHO) the only real choices we have are between Democrats who are bad on civil liberties and Republicans who take concrete steps to do away with civil liberties. I wish they were better, but I don’t see any alternative to voting for even the worst dem. The Republican no matter what he says would allways be worse.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
September 12, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
MHO is that there’s not even that much distinction between the teams. Right now, Team Blue itself isn’t even trying to sell this distinction (or the supposed anti-war distinction, or a lot of other claimed differences).